Is ( EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM ) OK?

I can get the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM http://www.usa.canon.c​om …tegoryid=150&mo​delid=7444 new for 70.00? I thought it might work out with my new xt body this summer for outdoors/field sports etc. until I can afford a f/2.8 lens for fall low light conditions. Thoughts?

slyone wrote in post #2256716
I can get the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM http://www.usa.canon.c​om …tegoryid=150&mo​delid=7444 new for 70.00? I thought it might work out with my new xt body this summer for outdoors/field sports etc. until I can afford a f/2.8 lens for fall low light conditions. Thoughts?

for 70 bucks what the hell. you'll get a cheap lesson in what you want and don't want in your next zoom .

ed rader

You get what you pay for. This lens gets poorer reviews than the Canon L lenses in the same range of focal lengths but it's much much cheaper. Unless you want big prints you may not be that bothered by the images you get. If funds are limited go for it, or consider the Sigma lenses in this range.

For sports you want fast focussing and the right focal length. You don't need IS as the shutter speeds that you need to freeze the motion make it irrelevant. Get the widest max aperture you can afford - I (just) manage with f4 for football in the dark gloomy UK!

That's my 2 pence worth anyway!

That's what I figured, it can't be all that bad, right? I do see Canon actually has 2 of these with the difference being AF controlled by USM or DC, not sure why this was done, then I also see a 100/300 which is more$ and the difference is rear focusing?

slyone wrote in post #2256762
That's what I figured, it can't be all that bad, right? I do see Canon actually has 2 of these with the difference being AF controlled by USM or DC, not sure why this was done, then I also see a 100/300 which is more$ and the difference is rear focusing?

don't bother with this. seventy bucks is seventy bucks closer to something else..

For that price, if you have no money to spend, I would buy it.
It's not a good lens, but it's not that bad.
Just remember that you will want something else later.
I have the old model, Ef 75-300 (not IS, not USM, nothing...) and could get some good results from that old thing.
I shoot mostly airliners. You can have a look. I don't think they are bad at all.
All they need is a little visit to Photoshop.
http://www.airliners.n​et/open.file/1131377/L​/

Just my 2 cents

I saw a "professional photographer" use that lens this weekend with a 1Dmark II. I asked why she was using that lens and she replied that she always uses her telephoto to shoot pictures. My comment went right over her head. AND I don't think she is a real "professional"

You can't really lose at that price. When you find that you need something better you'll probably still be able to sell it for the same. And in the meantime you'll have had experience of using it and have a much better understanding of what you're looking for in a replacement.

For that price it is a no-brainer - get the lens, use it and learn from it. By the time you feel it is not serving your needs the chances are you will both know what to replace it with, AND be able to afford to. and I'm pretty sure if you ebay the lens you'll make a bit of profit too.

Bill Roberts wrote in post #2257500
You can't really lose at that price. When you find that you need something better you'll probably still be able to sell it for the same. And in the meantime you'll have had experience of using it and have a much better understanding of what you're looking for in a replacement.

so true! now I find an accessories competitor vying for my dollars! The Canon battery grip for the same money

p.s. being that I won't be able to get a really descent and needed lens until late summer, I probably would be better served using this than the battery grip. I think I may just stay clear of that Opteka...

i`ve still got that lens but not the usm version, id say upto 200mm its great, when you get towards 300mm you loose alot of quality, id still get it

in this case, even though its a crappy lens, if you simply cannot afford better at this time i say go for it, only because at this price you can sell it at a profit or at least not a loss later when you are ready cash wise.

Skip it. You'll just waste 70 bucks on something you can't use for sports shooting.

ed rader wrote in post #2256727
for 70 bucks what the hell. you'll get a cheap lesson in what you want and don't want in your next zoom .

I agree. I owned one of these for all of one day, and found it to be ergonomically unworkable. Usable apertures required longer shutter speeds, but the lens was too light to hold steady (especially at 300mm) and offered no surfaces for bracing. For many applications, it's a tripod-only lens.

But I'd probably buy one for $70. And if it annoyed me too much, I'd sell it on ebay. The experiment will be free at least and might even make you a tidy profit.

Rick "who has paid more and gotten less in the past" Denney

I'd buy 10 of them and ebay them for $150 each plus
shipping. I'm serious